From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out30-45.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-45.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.45]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C5CD3857C53 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 12:34:13 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 5C5CD3857C53 X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS; BC=-1|-1; BR=01201311R121e4; CH=green; DM=||false|; DS=||; FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1; HT=e01e04394; MF=cooper.qu@linux.alibaba.com; NM=1; PH=DS; RN=4; SR=0; TI=SMTPD_---0U49dWYd_1596026050; Received: from L-X0CGLVDL-0840.local(mailfrom:cooper.qu@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0U49dWYd_1596026050) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Wed, 29 Jul 2020 20:34:10 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [RISC-V] Add support for TLS stack protector canary access To: Kito Cheng , Jim Wilson Cc: guoren@linux.alibaba.com, GCC Patches References: <20200713081508.48727-1-cooper.qu@linux.alibaba.com> <7c1ffff6-d29c-9aaf-aabc-c51a38e41787@linux.alibaba.com> From: Cooper Qu Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 20:34:09 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 12:34:17 -0000 Sorry for later replay, I will add testcases on a following patch if the patch is accepted. Regards, Cooper On 2020/7/28 上午9:23, Kito Cheng wrote: > Add testcase later is OK to me. > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 6:55 AM Jim Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:04 PM cooper wrote: >>> Ping >>> >>> On 2020/7/13 下午4:15, cooper wrote: >>>> gcc/ >>>> * config/riscv/riscv-opts.h (stack_protector_guard): New enum. >>>> * config/riscv/riscv.c (riscv_option_override): Handle >>>> the new options. >>>> * config/riscv/riscv.md (stack_protect_set): New pattern to handle >>>> flexible stack protector guard settings. >>>> (stack_protect_set_): Ditto. >>>> (stack_protect_test): Ditto. >>>> (stack_protect_test_): Ditto. >>>> * config/riscv/riscv.opt (mstack-protector-guard=, >>>> mstack-protector-guard-reg=, mstack-protector-guard-offset=): New >>>> options. >>>> * doc/invoke.texi (Option Summary) [RISC-V Options]: >>>> Add -mstack-protector-guard=, -mstack-protector-guard-reg=, and >>>> -mstack-protector-guard-offset=. >>>> (RISC-V Options): Ditto. >> The v2 patch looks fine to me. Meanwhile, Kito asked for testcases >> which would be nice to have but I don't think is critical considering >> that this has already been tested with a kernel build. Maybe the >> testcases can be a follow on patch? I'd like to see forward movement >> on this, even if we accept a patch without the testcases. >> >> Jim